gun violence control through mandatory liability insurance and taxation - from Forbes

I find the intersection of economics and other disciplines fascinating, like endocrinology and neuro-economics. In this instance, the author proposes a means by which the invisible hand of the markets might help contribute to the reduction of gun violence.

I think the idea of mandatory requirements for liability insurance for firearms, the way we require it for automobiles, is an excellent solution to a range of problems, including losses from injury and from property damage.

This particular author includes an aspect of taxation in conjunction with liability insurance while referencing social economics sources which make it of particular interest in how financial policy affects our lives.

From Forbes:
Newtown's New Reality: Using Liability Insurance to Reduce Gun Deaths

We are all mourning now. Children should not be murdered in their classrooms. They shouldn’t be afraid that their teacher will be shot, as my 12-year-old daughter worries. Schools should not become armed camps. Many of the low-hanging fruit approaches seem like no-brainers: Ban assault weapons, gun-show sales, multiple-ammo clips and require longer, more stringent background checks.
For the record: I’m not of the mind that every gun-owner is a threat to society nor should we restrict gun use for hunters, collectors and target shooters. My father owns guns, I have shot guns many times, have known people who were murdered by guns and witnessed a police shooting in 1981.

But I don’t think a widespread seizure of some 300 million American weapons will ever work. In fact, just mention “gun control,” and the very phrase shuts down conversation and invokes the vague rights and curse of the second amendment. Challenges to the constitution would never make it through the Roberts court, anyway.

What we can do is to look at gun sales through the lens of social economics. Market-based risk pricing is the partial answer. Let’s agree that guns as weapons are inherently dangerous to society and owners should bear the risk and true social costs. Translation: Require both owners and sellers to purchase liability insurance that is universally underwritten by actuaries according to relative risk.

Given that gun violence, which kills more than 30,000 Americans annually, is harmful not only to our well being, but our economy, we should use economic disincentives to regulate its use.

1. That's exactly what we need

to tax poor people out of the ability to own a legal weapon to defend themselves while rich people are still able to afford all the protections that being rich usually does. What could possibly go wrong?

7. yep nt

64. So, you claim to know what an entire magazine wants? Or are you just mindreading the author?

The topic of shooting costs to the economy and using economic measures like taxation and insurance to regulate the problem is not unique to Forbes. Trying to blow this off because it comes from Forbes. or from any other source that is financial or economic in area of expertise is foolish.

There are real economic costs to guns, and they are enormous - the CDC has tracked them. I would put it to you that the 2nd Amendment is colliding with the commerce clause of the Constitution in the area of gun control.

The impact of gun deaths and injuries go well beyond heartbreak to include billions of dollars of losses to the economy. The cost of U.S. gun violence in work lost, medical care, insurance, criminal-justice expenses and pain and suffering amounted to as much as $174 billion in 2010, according to data compiled by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation in Calverton, Maryland.

The nonprofit organization provides cost estimates of illnesses and injuries for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Transportation Department and industry associations, said economist Ted Miller, the group’s principal research scientist.
Columbine Massacre

The institute placed the cost of gun violence as higher than the total for U.S. alcohol-related automobile crashes, which was calculated at $129.7 billion in a 2006 study conducted for the road-construction industry, he said.

The societal cost of just one gun homicide averages $5 million, according to the institute. That includes $1.6 million in lost work; $29,000 in medical care; $11,000 on surviving families’ mental-health treatment; $397,000 in criminal-justice, incarceration and police expenses; $9,000 in employer losses; and $3 million in pain, suffering and lost quality of life.

68. They have grossly exagerated the costs to society.

Like all such articles it assumes that guns are purely cost with no benefits. When a Defensive Gun Use stops a crime, that is a benefit. However, such benefits are extremely difficult to calculate, but they are real.

$5 million per gun homicide? Sorry, but that is waaaay too high. Over 50% of homicide victims are themselves part of the violent criminal sub-culture. Their "lost work" is criminal activity that doesn't happen. $3 million in "pain & suffering & lost quality of life" for a dead felon? What about the savings of that same thing from his furture victims who are then saved from being his victims?

Even if it is an honest citizen that is murdered, they must only be caluclating the cost of 1%ers being murdered.

SNIP
In Baltimore, during the last year, 91% of murder victims were themselves criminals.

SNIP

"The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests."

I think the CDC should recalculate. It isn't an economic loss to society when a thug with 12 arrests in two years gets killed. It is a large money savings.

100. apparently you have no respect for the role that Medical examiners play in criminology

You have not proven that most victims of gun violence are criminals. Certainly with us having 87% of the casualties from gun violence being children of the top industrialized/developed countries? Are you considering them as criminals?

What mandatory liability insurance - and some limited taxation in support of it, as well as some taxation as well is a non-governmental means to encourage and require better gun ownership - as in better securing of weapons to comply with insurance polices, for example (like gun safes, trigger guards, etc.). It also means that with actuaries calculating risk, the costs of insurance will track with the risks of the firearms, making it more self-regulating. It seems apparent, pending more details being provided, for example, that the mother of Adam Lanza did not keep her firearms sufficiently secure to prevent her son from getting into them, with disastrous results.

Sorry, but I don't really care if you believe that most gun victims are criminals or not; I think that is crazy, there is not sufficient documentation for that position. But if that were to be true then the solution is to keep guns from getting into the hands of criminals better than we do. For that reason there is much more support for mandatory compliance with submission of the names of prohibited persons to the NICS, mandatory background checks and proof of same for ALL firearms transactions (including gifts, loans or leases), and mandatory reporting of all guns which go missing or are stolen.

This was highlighted just this week when a woman was arrested for being a straw purchaser for the guy who shot the fire fighters in New York. It would be true as well for the woman who was the straw purchaser of firearms in the Columbine shooting. The reality is that for example most mass shootings are done with legally purchased guns.

If we also start requiring people to show proof of insurance for the appropriate weapon when they purchase ammunition for that firearm, then we significantly reduce the ability of people who own illegal guns - the criminals - to be able to do anything with them. This could be enhanced by micro-stamping as well.

We have a gun problem in so far as they are used in gun violence. This is just one of a multi-pronged and comprehensive set of options to keep guns available to the safe and responsible gun enthusiast, while doing more to keep them out of the hands of those who are careless and irresponsible, or criminal.

It is legal under the commerce clause. We already both regulate guns and ammo, and tax them. I particularly like the way that this allows the market mechanism of insurance to minimize government restriction and policing, and at the same time provides offsets to costs to our society and economy from gun violence that should properly be paid by gun owners.

There is a lot of discussion of this idea making the rounds; I would suggest those who love guns and shooting sports should read up on them and figure out how this could work both to your benefit and to the benefit of our society/culture/economy. It has the potential to be a win/win proposition.

Here is another writer on the subject, from a writer I think is very intelligent an well-researched:

Who pays the least for gun insurance would be least likely to commit a crime with it. An 80-year-old married woman in Fort Lauderdale would get a great rate. A 20-year-old in inner-city Chicago wouldn’t be able to afford it. A 32-year-old man with a record of drunk driving and domestic violence would have a similar problem.

Gun ownership is all but banned in Chicago, and federal law would prohibit a 20 year old from buying a handgun legally. The guy with the domestic violence record would also be legally prohibited from buying one. Possessing one would transform him from just another wife beating POS to federal felon. He could have used better examples.

BTW, unless National Review changed a lot since Bill Buckley's death, it is right of center like Forbes. Granted it is geared more towards the more intellectual conservative, like Mr. Buckley himself was. I won't alert because it is an easy mistake to make in this age of faux outdoorswomen, gold hawking rodeo clowns, and draft dodging blowhards being what passes for conservatism's intellectual trust.

67. Why?

70. The company men...

were more than willing to open fire on the strikers. They even took the time and trouble to set up a couple of belt-fed machine guns just for the occasion. Not to mention talking Billy Mitchell into "leaving" the Army Air Corps long enough to do a little private sector bombing run on the camps. The 1% wants labor disarmed for a reason. You think guys like Bloomberg are really concerned with your family's safety?

2. I'm sure that criminals will be lining up to insure their illegal guns.

20. it will affect criminals, indirectly

It has to go hand in hand with mandatory background checks, and stiffer penalties for anyone selling, giving, loaning, leasing, or leaving a gun to someone who is prohibited.

If you cannot sell a gun to someone the same way a car dealership can only sell a car to you / transfer title with proof of insurance, it will be a way to stop the transfer of guns from those who were legal buyers to those who are not.

Is it perfect? No. Is it better? Potentially yes. The up sides to liability insurance though are the more likely reimbursement to people who are killed (their survivors, their estate, including providing funeral expenses) or just wounded (medical expenses, disability) or have their property shot up and damaged.

So, no criminals with their existing guns won't. But it could reduce the number of guns that get into the hands of criminals so easily. Part of holding people accountable for how criminals get guns is to make those who have them legally held accountable for what happens to them.

Which would you prefer? The Government (local, state, and federal) or an insurance company? (Here's a hint - it is easier to sue the insurance company and win, if you have a dispute than it is the government - any level of government).

What is not going to continue is people doing nothing to stop the gun violence problem.

21. incorrect gejohnston

Every analysis of suicides show that when you make guns less available, suicides decrease.

Every analysis of suicides show that there is extremely limited substitution for method - so yes, it would make a difference in our suicide rate. It will drop; has in every other country when gun access became stricter, btw.

26. the analysis I have seen were

written by Joyce Foundation shills. They provided equal evidence that showed rural areas have more suicides. No, it hasn't. Australia's suicide rate did not drop. Neither did Canada's. Gun related suicides, but not suicides. Use of guns in crimes increased in UK.

63. I refer you to all of the research on the topic of substitution in means of suicides (or lack of it)

Please quote your sources. The body of work which shows that people do not, statistically, tend to substitute different means to commit suicide, but instead just don't commit suicide when thwarted in their choice of method, is huge.

You are wrong in your information, and there is ample data coming from multiple sources, not just the Joyce foundation about the change in suicides stats.

Use of guns in crimes did NOT increase in the UK. I don't know what sources you are using but they're wrong too.

Further, I saw an interesting article that shows that what are being counted as 'guns' in crimes in the UK have included some pretty general definitions -- like starter pistols -- which are not what I think most users here would consider really applicable to our discussion.

65. you made the claim first

but I always see the qualifier "gun suicides" in these studies. In fact, all of the studies you linked so far, IIRC, used that qualifier. They dealt specifically with gun suicides, not all suicides as I pointed out before. While South Korea has almost no, if any, gun suicides, it has the highest suicide rate of all OCED countries. Japan is second. We are 18 out of 34.

107. stats and stick figures

and
I'm not seeing peer reviewing that debunks this, and I'm skeptical of any other kind. Looks to me like the police and MEs figured in this pretty thoroughly and that it conforms to the standards as well for public health analysis of shootings. This looks like one of those peer reviews:

Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.
METHODS:

We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.
RESULTS:

During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
CONCLUSIONS:

Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

109. since the CDC lists defensive gun uses

over 100K per year, and some studies by criminologists put it up in the millions, how do you get that number?
The original claim was 43 times. Kellerman dropped it to 2.7 times. Doesn't change the fact that mentioning this study would get you laughed out of a criminology class.

10. 1%ers telling the rest of us how to live are very popular with that lot these days

22. Is this contributer a 1%er?

I didn't find that anywhere. While Steve Forbes may be a 1%er, most of Forbes contributors and most of Forbes readers are NOT 1%ers.

And no one would be telling 'the rest of us' how to live, IF there wasn't a problem with how people are living - and dying - now from gun violence. You don't get to just leave that part out of the equation like everything was just wonderful in the status quo. It's not.

34. Oh please. Don't make us listen to this nonsense.

It is a fact that every year there are many gun deaths that result from improper handling and storage by "honest" gun owners. As far as we know, Nancy Lanza was one of these "honest" gun owners you speak of. But somehow her guns were used to slaughter 26. Liability insurance makes perfect sense.

23. that would likely change in the event that more gun owners sought liability insurance

That's how numbers drive insurance rates. It is inconceivable that they would stay the same, and based on risk, for those who are safe, the rates would go down. That is what actuaries live to calculate.

71. Liability insurance that covered only gun-related incidents would be extremely inexpensive

81. I believe gun insurance

would be risk based, thus based on your location, socio economic background, history of DUIs, alcoholism etc, you would be categorized by the insurance company actuaries and charged accordingly. For some it would be inexpensive and for others, not so inexpensive.

82. I see no reduction in gun violence by being insured against liability.

I agree with everything in the article you link to except the insurance "solution". I see that as a marketing ploy rather than any kind of solution.
The only way I see to reduce gun violence without outright bans, is to increase accountability, which insurance would not accomplish.
And the only way to make gun owners accountable is by having comprehensive registration and tracking of firearms.

83. requiring liability insurance

is not by itself a complete answer, but it is part of a comprehensive answer.

If you couldn't go into a store like walmart to buy ammunition without proof of insurance, or get a hunting license -- you can bet more people would get insurance.

If you couldn't get insurance without a mental health check, or proof that you stored your firearms securely, and with reporting all of your weapons to the insurance company the way you have to insure your vehicles -- it would go a long way towards keepnig guns out of the hands of those who are not legal gun owners. It would mean that you could be required by the Insurance company to report if your guns were lost or stolen, there are all sorts of ways in which we could make access to firearms and ammo, etc. safer.

However what I don't see here from you is a discussion of the economic aspects of taxation and insurance. The arguments are made well in the sources I provided.

91. I'm not interested in a discussion on the economics of gun ownership.

I'm sure your idea would be good for insurers and provide some kind of revenue stream, which could be directed positively. However, I don't want insurance companies handling public safety anymore than I want them handling public health.
Most importantly, I don't see how it would save any lives.

111. I agree.

93. so you don't get it - allow me to explain

Requiring mandatory insurance makes people more accountable.

It would require that people report the guns they have to their insurance company, it would require they report them stolen or missing - an issue that just came up in the arrest of the woman who bought several guns used by the felon in New York who started houses on fire and then shot four firefighters, killing two and injuring two of them.

It would limit straw purchases which is reputed to be one of the ways in which criminals get guns illegally; remember that all guns start out as legal guns. It could also be used to reinforce legislation which is likely coming in the next month that would toughen up other ways that guns get into the hands of prohibited people. If you sell or give a gun to someone who cannot legally own a gun, because they are nuts or a felon or a drug user or a minor or an illegal immigrant, then there is a record if that gun is used in a crime of when you had it, and when you did not, helping track firearms that get into illegal hands.

Probably the most useful aspect would be that insurance companies could require proof that you are yourself a stable person, like some kind of mental health testing, they could limit arsenals of weapons by people who do things like James Holmes by having policy limits on quantities, and they could require proof of safe and secure storage -- which would have prevented a couple of deaths of children in Minneapolis this year in the Hmong community, where concealed carry permittees stashed guns around the house in places where there were children, no trigger locks, no secure storage.

It could be used to limit who buys ammunition; guns without ammo don't kill or injure people.

But if you're not interested in a discussion of socio-economics - don't participate in one. To use a phrase, no one is holding a gun to your head.

105. No, I get it and I disagree.

I think it makes them less accountable. It would make insurance companies a load of money though, I'll grant you that. Having insurance companies decide who is fit and stable enough to own a gun is a million times worse than having the government decide. We don't elect insurance companies. Any laws enacted should be enforced and regulated by government entities, not for-profit organizations.

14. Are you kidding me?

Given that gun violence, which kills more than 30,000 Americans annually, is harmful not only to our well being, but our economy, we should use economic disincentives to regulate its use.

First, a few facts:
The 30,000 deaths per year include suicides and actions by law enforcement. This is about 1 firearm death for every 2,666 lawful gun owners. It's not uncommon for murders to kill more than one person before they are caught or killed.

Now, a few questions:
1- To what harm are you referring?
2- How exactly does a suicide hurt the economy?
3- How does having 2,665 people pay insurance for each death prevent that death?
4- How does this even work for unregistered firearms?

Comments:
This seems like a solution without a problem. Not that firearm deaths aren't a problem but no amount of insurance paid by the uninvolved will prevent criminals from committing crimes.

AFAIK there is no health related standard of care suggesting a periodic psychological evaluation that would be analogous to a (physical) checkup that many of us already get. Having this be adopted (and covered) by the insurance industry would be a step in the right direction toward avoiding some future shootings caused by mental issues.

19. With this:

Those most at risk to commit a gun crime would be known to the actuaries doing the research for insurers. They would be underwritten according to age, mental health, place of residence, credit/bankruptcy record and marital status.

I'm guessing that the writer is attempting to make plausible the inference that sequelae of criminals and the mentally ill (who would be in illegal possession) would show how have coverage. I'm guessing not.

In 2000, the estimated cost of self-directed violence (fatal and nonfatal) was $33 billion ($32 billion in productivity losses and $1 billion in medical costs)

It works for unregistered or illegal firearms by holding people who have guns responsible for the person to whom they transfer a gun by any means without both a background check and proof that person has insurance. A certain number if not all guns that turn up in crimes are traced. It would also certainly be a requirement that people would have to provide secure storage, trigger locks, and to report theft to police --- much like people have requirements for car insurance. Guns have begun to surpass cars in number of deaths in a number of states.

There could very well be advantages in this for the gun owner; if we mandate liability insurance, more companies would be making comprehensive gun coverage available to replace or repair a damaged or stolen gun.

40. LCAV

The director can't show an example of gun laws reducing violent crime or doesn't seem to know what the Gun Control Act of 1968 is (can just drive to the next state)
If the one shooter did get his gun from a seller in Vegas, there should be federal gun law charges brought. In the Son of Sam shootings, the killer did buy the gun in Texas from a private person. The ATF traced the gun to this guy in Texas, who got 5-10 years for violating the Gun Control Act.
&list=FLGjp21lBK0TiXCoaaHdkeSw&index=38

35. car deaths are falling mostly because of

air bags. Most gun deaths are suicides.
Most gun violence is concentrated in small areas in urban areas. So you are saying that the target shooter in south Illinois, hunter in Wyoming etc should be held responsible for murders committed by drug dealers in Chicago and Denver. Sorry, that's bullshit. That is why gun control laws are met with that much resistance. Ultimately, that is what you are doing. You are blaming some farmer in Montana for your drug connection being murdered in Brooklyn.

45. I think you're headed in the wrong direction

I agree that laws regarding safe storage, trigger locks and adequate security are a good idea. I favor these laws being prima facie rather than absolute. If you're familiar with California speed limits, they are prima facie. Exceeding the speed limit upon citation and testimony of law enforcement does not guarantee a conviction as long as you're able to prove that your speed and operation was reasonable for the conditions at the time and place. Laws regarding safety and security seldom lend themselves to absolutes and laws carved in stone. What is completely reckless in one situation may be reasonable in another.

I assume from your quoting the $33 billion losses that you're expecting the insurance to pay for these. The further breakdown showing that $1 billion should go to doctors, nurses and hospitals presumably to pay for uninsured folks who injure or kill themselves in suicide attempts. Knowing that one would get paid for treating a shooting suicide but maybe not a poisoning suicide wouldn't bias anyone would it? The other $32 billion in productivity losses, who gets that/those checks? If they are losses to our national economy shouldn't everyone get one? Some quick calculator work tells me that would average about $120/gun/year in premiums and around $100/year in payments to every man, woman and child in the country.

Thinking about those premiums and payments makes me wonder if the additional $8-9 billion (minimally) that insurance administration would add to the $33 billion is worth it since the primary folks affected by suicide are the ones attempting to kill themselves. I would say most of the losses are due to those successfully killing themselves no longer collecting a paycheck for the next 5 months up to maybe 50 years. So while it's true that the income is lost, the person is also dead and unable to collect and spend it. Other folks try and fail to kill themselves. I guess a fair percentage become disabled and possibly even more likely to try again.

We have seen from several of these mass shootings the shooters are often mentally ill. Maybe mental health is the right place to start. Other countries have not just better overall healthcare than we do but better mental health care in particular.

73. Decoding CDC-speak.

"Legal intervention" = police shootings
"determined intent" is a typo. I think you meant "undetermined intent". That is CDC-speak for, killed by an armed citizen in self-defense. CDC does not like to admit that justifiable homicides by citizens exist, so they try to hide it.

88. Ah, got it. Thanks for clearing that up! n/t

47. Each person killed by a firearm, no matter how....

1) requires a funeral - not cheap and may bankrupt the family of the victim
2) may leave a family without a source of income
3) may result in a family losing their home
4) a family without income is lost as a tax payer and may have to turn to social assistance, definitely not contributing to the economy.
5) may require psychological therapy for those left behind
6) cost tax payers for the police investigation, even more if it is murder, and additional funds if there is a trial.

There are undoubtedly more losses that accrue, but I think the following are enough.

49. in the US,

the vast majority of murderers and murder victims have criminal records and often where gun laws are very strict to banned. In short, the guns are not likely to be from the black market and definitely have insurance. So, who would pay most of the time?

51. For the sake of argument

Even if the majority of murder victims have a criminal record, nevertheless their families will pay the price if they are murdered. Society may have to pay the price to support them afterward.

The vast majority of illegal weapons are stolen from law abiding citizens who fail to properly secure those weapons, so although they are not the ones who commit the murders, they nevertheless contibute to the stream of illegal weapon commerce.

Inasmuch as auto liability insurance is mandatory, because some people are lousy drivers, gun insurance should be mandatory because some people are lousy gun owners, either through inexcusable gun storage or inexcusable gun practices. Oh and BTW, the insurance companies should be required to contribute to a victims indemnity fund, to compensate the innocent victims of gun violence.

69. The vast majority of murder victims do have criminal records.

In Baltimore, about 91% of murder victims this year had criminal records, up from 74% a decade ago, police reported.

SNIP

Philadelphia police Capt. Ben Naish says the Baltimore numbers are "shocking." Philadelphia also has seen the number of victims with criminal pasts inch up — to 75% this year from 71% in 2005.

In Milwaukee, local leaders created the homicide commission after a spike in violence led to a 39% increase in murders in 2005. The group compiled statistics on victims' criminal histories for the first time and found that 77% of homicide victims in the past two years had an average of nearly 12 arrests.

SNIP

In Newark, where three young friends with no apparent links to crime were executed Aug. 4, roughly 85% of victims killed in the first six months of this year had criminal records, on par with the percentage in 2005 but up from 81% last year, police statistics show

SNIP

More at link. Interesting article.

Criminology is a very well studied field, but for some strange reason the findings of that field are almost completely ignored by the rest of society. We tend to look to Hollywood for our information.

Street criminals are not exactly well known for being great family guys who are supporting a wife and kids.

72. I am aware of:

- the individual cost issues after a death. I've dealt with enough.
- that each person killed by a firearm, is usually shot, whether by accident or on purpose is not fiscally significant.
- that family members of the dead may or may not have worked before the death and may or may not work after.
- mostly what a high percentage of those murdered had long criminal histories, had contributed to the overall cost of crime, may have killed innocents in the past and may have gone on to continue a life of crime and perhaps murder.

Each death by whatever means is regrettable but not all deaths make a negative entry in life's journal.

32. making ammo purchasers show proof of insurance for the gun

they are going to use the ammo with is another way that this could help keep the illegal gun people from being able to do anything with them. Guns are useless without bullets. That tracks as well with microstamping.

36. how would microstamping work?

can you find a forensics expert that would agree with you? There is only one company that holds the patent for the technology, and their PR flacks convinced gun control groups it would work to make them money. Since gun control groups of people who lack any knowledge of firearms, forensics, or any other technical field, it was an easy sell.

38. No, they don't need to purchase ammo.

Criminals usually don't fire their gun in a hold-up. They can keep the gun loaded with the same bullets all year. Further, they can bluff with an empty gun. (Except for revolvers.) Lawful citizens who want to practice and be proficient would be the ones punished by insurance costs.

39. Never heard of anyone shot dead with a bluff

Just as I am "punished" by smokers for my health insurance and "punished" by drinkers for my car insurance, I pay the price to help reduce the costs to society. Taxes on alcohol and tobacco go a long way to help alleviate the problems of both.

62. that is true with a few exceptions

For example, if your car is stolen and involved in an accident - or a deliberate act - that harms another person or property, insurance pays for the damage.

In some situations, insurance will pay the person injured by deliberate criminal acts, but will not pay or protect the insured if the insured committed the criminal act. For example, if you kill or injure someone while driving while intoxicated - a criminal act - your policy will usually pay the injured or their estate if you kill someone, or for property damage. What it might not pay is you for your losses, but even then no fault law might require any medical bills you require needs to be paid, criminal act or not, or towards your legal defense.

Who gets paid under what circumstances is covered by how the law requires the insurance to be written.

So what you noted is true......but only to a point, and is not likely to be a problem with this kind of insurance. However, if you have a history of suicide attempts, with or without using guns, you might have to pay a much higher rate for risk coverage, or even be refused insurance for firearms, making it more difficult to buy either a gun or ammunition.......and therefore more difficult for you to commit suicide in the future.

53. That's where a Victims Indemnity Fund

financed by the insurance companies would come in. If insurance companies are going to make money hand over fist insuring guns, they should have to contribute to a fund to help out the victims of gun crime.

54. since most of the gang violence including drive bys

are drug related, why isn't the "drug culture" being asked to step up? That is what fuels and funds the problem. Why is some deer hunter in Montana being expected to pay for Chicago's problem, but drug users in Chicago are not?

56. many of those also own handguns

there are AR type rifles designed for hunting. Handgun hunting is also legal in the US, in some states. In my home state, your handgun would have to use a rifle round, because the game regulations require a casing at least two inches. (Which I understand handgun hunting is not legal in Canada. That could be one of the reasons why rural Canadians choose not to own them even if your ownership laws were similar to ours) People in places like Montana and Wyoming often also own handguns for various reasons.

In the example I used, the number of legal handgun owners in Chicago, is extremely few if any since private handguns are banned. While SCOTUS overturned their law, Chicago puts pointless roadblocks to legal ownership and defies the law, at great cost to their city coffers.

Bushmaster is simply the name of the manufacture. In the case of the guy in New York, he was convicted and served ten years for murdering a 92 year old woman with a hammer. He could not have legally obtained the gun.

In the US, the TV news is largely infotainment to be taken with a grain of salt. Accuracy takes a back seat to a good story.

You didn't answer my question about those more responsible for the problem paying their share.

57. I don't have any facts and figures related to the type of drugs

being illegally marketed in large cities. If the majority are manufactured in illegal labs, it would be rather difficult to tax or insure yahoos with meth labs, although people who legally rent to people running a grow op can probably be held liable in the event of fire. Not sure regarding the meth labs, but the same may hold true. If pharmacologicals are now gaining popularity as illegal drugs of choice to the masses, I expect that the legal purchasers of those drugs should be held liable if they are stolen by their children. If a database were available to track narcotic drug purchases, then pharmacists and doctors could be held liable for multiple prescriptions to a single individual. These people already carry insurance and are already regulated. The end purchaser already pays some of that cost in dispensing fees.

The criminal in NY illustrates how easily AR type guns end up in the hands of criminals and why it should be more difficult to own them, if only to reduce the number in circulation. Perhaps if it cost more, and the buyer had to jump through more hoops to get them, they would think twice before buying them and they would be more likely to secure them from theft.

58. assuming the AR didn't come from NYPD

The guy in New York also had a .38 revolver and a shotgun. Was it a weapon of choice, or simply what he had.

Philosophically, I am opposed to those innocent of crimes, nor directly responsible, being liable for any actions of others.
The drug gang violence in Mexico, US, Canada, Germany, are the responsibility of those gang members and their customers. Not the target shooter in Mexico city, hunter in Wyoming or Alberta. Simple as that.

60. Not all guns deaths result from crimes

what about the "accidental" deaths. Most of those are also caused by irresponsible gun owners - I think that's the point of the proposed legislation. Too many gun owners treat their guns with all of the care and consideration given to their TV remote. Whether people are dying accidentally or at the hands of a criminal, the gun is ending up in the wrong hands with disasterous results. I'm sure millions of people are careful drivers, but everyone has to pay for those who are not. Would you prefer a country full of people driving without insurance or driver's licenses? It's the same argument. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

61. accidental deaths are very rare

Compared to other accidental deaths, they are almost nonexistent. The point of the proposed legislation is a culture war. No more, no less. While some think of it as a public safety issue, they are actually in the minority. Most of them it is about culture. If you read enough rants and propaganda, it isn't hard to notice. That is how it works in the US.
Since I know a lot of US (and I grew up in a part of the US where almost everyone has guns) and Canadian gun owners, none of them I know treats their guns "with the care and consideration given their TV remotes".
From my stand point, given the problem with gangs, the average pot smoker is more responsible for US and Mexican gun violence than gun owners because they fund and fuel it. So again, when is the drug culture going to be asked to take responsibility?

78. You will excuse the late reply, but it was 2 am EST, the time

of my last post.

I think that rural people treat their guns with respect because for rural people guns have a distinct purpose besides self defense. To people in rural areas guns are tools like any others, and so are given the appropriate care and attention. Rural children are taught to respect guns and not treat them like toys. Urban and sub-urban dwellers don't think like rural people. They live in a disposable, consumeristic world. If something is stolen, it can be replaced, with no thought as to what became of it after it was stolen. It's just another piece of replaceable property. The proof of that is the number of unlawful guns in circulation. Urban people are far less likely to teach their children about guns - in part because they don't respect them themselves. Many guns are purchased by urban citizens on a whim - a passing thought that it may come in handy one day. No attention paid to appropriate storage, cleaning or training.

I don't deny the connection between drugs and guns. But if it were not drugs, it would be something else, for the criminal element will always find something that is in short supply, or some way to manipulate the weaknesses in society. Drugs fulfill that purpose very well. Police expend massive resources already trying to eradicate dealers from the street. Prisons are full of them, but for every one they put away, there is one to replace them, because the dealers come from a world where they live without purpose and without any hope of a purpose in the future. What's that old saying about idle hands. Society tries to hold the drug dealers and drug addicts accountable, by imprisoning them. You can't tax or license or charge insurance for something that isn't legal to begin with. In the long run it is more expensive to jail them than to leave them alone, except for the fact that the drugs they sell end up in the hands of the average school kids, and some of them die or become addicts themselves. So society keeps shelling out hard earned tax dollars to chase them down and imprison them. Unfortunately it doesn't work, but no one wants to do what it would really take to eliminate the problem, and that is to address poverty, particularly in big cities.

The "drug culture" as you call it, is primarily confined to the poorer elements of society. Sure, some people of means use drugs recreationally, but the most common recreational drug is marijuana and truth be told, it has fewer harmful affects than alcohol. Just like during the time of prohibition, it was the prohibition that attracted the criminal element. Perhaps if they made it legal, it could be taxed and regulated like alcohol and tobacco. It's hard to keep something out of peoples hands that grows from seeds. It's not called "weed" for nothing. It would in fact become a profitable cash crop for farmers. I doubt however, that the seriously addictive concoctions coming out of the illegal drug labs can ever become legal, because of the severe health consequences. The only logical conclusion is that society wants the ability to choose to be high at some point or other and perhaps the solution is to create harmless drugs that fulfill that purpose, squeezing out the criminal element. Then they could tax, license and charge insurance - what we call sin tax. I don't know if this is the response that you are looking for, but it's the best I can come up with.

79. Yes it is the prohibition

I think it should be legalized. Wouldn't smoke it myself, but that's me. FWIW, if this were the 1920s, I would be bitching about my fellow beer drinkers who buy from the mob instead of making your own. I guess I should have clarified that if you grow your own, or buy from BC that the RCMP gave up on, is different than Mexico.

80. Funny you should say that,

My mother grew up on a farm in Manitoba - my maternal grandfather supplemented the family income during the depression by making whiskey - good whiskey that didn't make you go blind. Never got caught by the RCMP, but ironically, the RCMP came snooping around the house because poppies grew wild there and of course the poppies were illegal!

75. You don't know Fudds like I know Fudds.

I know very few Elmer Fudd types that don't own an AR15. They may never shoot the thing but they have one in the safe. They are becoming increasingly popular with the groundhog and coyote hunting set as well. Not that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with hunting, though. That's just something the anti-gun crowd likes to toss out there to try to divide their opposition. After the AR15 is banned they'll go for the hunting arms anyway. And the Fudds know it.

The shooter in New York was a convicted felon who was released from prison early. He shouldn't have had a weapon at all. He probably shouldn't have been out of prison but that's easy to say in hindsight. It is against the law for such a person to possess a firearm. I wonder where he got the rifle?

76. The civilian population if the U.S. is rearming itself...

Overlooked (intentionally so, by many) is the fact most Americans are obtaining different classes of firearms to substitute for those which were popular when I was in college. It's no longer the .38 by the bed, or a shotgun in the corner. It is becoming the norm to use a semi-auto carbine for SD, sport shooting, and with simple modifications, hunting.

A couple of friends think it's corny for me to have a .357 for home defense. But one old fart get's use to another old fart. If they don't snore.

95. Imagine that..

Forbes AKA 1% of 1% wanting to impose taxes and high cost of enumerated civil liberties. Maybe if this works out for them the precedent will lead to a poll tax to keep the rif-raf away from the polls..